Turning the author-list into a petition is becoming an almost familiar ruse in the table of contents of journals such as Nature (Simberloff, 2011), (Abbot et. al. 2011). This as prompted some rather provocative commentary on whether we have begun conducting scientific debates as popularity contests rather than arguments of evidence and logic (see David Sloan Wilson on inclusive fitness theory 137 scientists can’t be wrong, or Chris on invasive species on ecolog. As much as this appeals to the inner scientist, the response from the other side can be quite persuasive: this particular discussion is a political one, not a scientific debate, and while excellent scientific work on the topic continues, it’s important the message policymakers will see is representative (i.e., to paraphrase David Duffy’s reply).
Why is it then that we organize petitions with such illustrious lists of authors for ostensibly political reasons to publish them in our primary scientific literature? Did this troupe of 141 also append their names to letter to their policymakers?
It is not so much the individual willingness of scientists to engage policy-relevant questions outside of scientific forums that I mean to raise – a look at the activities of many of the individuals can easily convince one otherwise. And it is certainly not a critique of a predilection for academic debate void of policy relevance – to say so would not only ignore the essential value of basic science but miss this invasive-species topic entirely, with its obvious desire for policy relevance. It is the ability to organize as a group that I would place emphasis on. As David’s comments make clear, we certainly recognize the political relevance not only of the work but of a long list of established scientists supporting it, even if we don’t view such a list as relevant to the scientific content of the argument.
Why is it that I feel it we are much better at assembling such an illustrious author list when we identify a misguided paper in a high profile journal than when we identify a misguided bill in congress?
Simberloff, D. et al. (2011). Non-natives: 141 scientists object Nature, 475 (7354), 36-36 DOI: 10.1038/475036a
References
Simberloff D (2011). “Non-Natives: 141 Scientists Object.” Nature, 475. ISSN 0028-0836, https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/475036a.
Abbot P, Abe J, Alcock J, Alizon S, Alpedrinha J, Andersson M, Andre J, van Baalen M, Balloux F, Balshine S, Barton N, Beukeboom L, Biernaskie J, Bilde T, Borgia G, Breed M, Brown S, Bshary R, Buckling A, Burley N, Burton-Chellew M, Cant M, Chapuisat M, Charnov E, Clutton-Brock T, Cockburn A, Cole B, Colegrave N, Cosmides L, Couzin I, Coyne J, Creel S, Crespi B, Curry R, Dall S, Day T, Dickinson J, Dugatkin L, Mouden C, Emlen S, Evans J, Ferriere R, Field J, Foitzik S, Foster K, Foster W, Fox C, Gadau J, Gandon S, Gardner A, Gardner M, Getty T, Goodisman M, Grafen A, Grosberg R, Grozinger C, Gouyon P, Gwynne D, Harvey P, Hatchwell B, Heinze J, Helantera H, Helms K, Hill K, Jiricny N, Johnstone R, Kacelnik A, Kiers E, Kokko H, Komdeur J, Korb J, Kronauer D, Kümmerli R, Lehmann L, Linksvayer T, Lion S, Lyon B, Marshall J, McElreath R, Michalakis Y, Michod R, Mock D, Monnin T, Montgomerie R, Moore A, Mueller U, Noë R, Okasha S, Pamilo P, Parker G, Pedersen J, Pen I, Pfennig D, Queller D, Rankin D, Reece S, Reeve H, Reuter M, Roberts G, Robson S, Roze D, Rousset F, Rueppell O, Sachs J, Santorelli L, Schmid-Hempel P, Schwarz M, Scott-Phillips T, Shellmann-Sherman J, Sherman P, Shuker D, Smith J, Spagna J, Strassmann B, Suarez A, Sundström L, Taborsky M, Taylor P, Thompson G, Tooby J, Tsutsui N, Tsuji K, Turillazzi S, Úbeda F, Vargo E, Voelkl B, Wenseleers T, West S, West-Eberhard M, Westneat D, Wiernasz D, Wild G, Wrangham R, Young A, Zeh D, Zeh J and Zink A (2011). “Inclusive Fitness Theory And Eusociality.” Nature, 471. ISSN 0028-0836, https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09831.